The GOP Deserves Trump

Robert Brent Toplin was
a professor of history at Denison University and is professor
emeritus at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington. Currently
he lives in Charlottesville, where he teaches occasional courses at
the University of Virginia. Toplin has published several books about
history, politics, and film. Contact: rt2b@Virginia.edu

Republican leaders are in
a fix. Donald Trump, the GOP’s presumptive nominee, has made so
many controversial statements that party leaders worry about his
impact in November. His candidacy may hurt Republicans running for
state and local office. Some Republican leaders in Washington wish
their party could reject Trump and choose a different standard
bearer. But they are afraid to speak up. They don’t want to
alienate Trump’s supporters or incur Trump’s wrath.

How did the Grand Old
Party get into in this mess? Why has the party that fielded broadly
popular and accomplished political figures for national leadership
such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush
settled on a candidate like Trump with a 70% unfavorability rating
(according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released on June 15)?
Why is the Party ready to nominate a candidate devoid of experience
in public office? Pundits will be mulling over these questions
throughout the campaign.

When
searching for answers, they may find it useful to consider the
historical situation that made Trump’s ascendancy possible. This is
not the first time that an individual lacking in presidential timber
became a Republican contender. Since 1988, several GOP candidates for
president and vice president lacked impressive qualifications for
national leadership.

Candidates’
shortcomings became notably evident in nominations for Vice
President. In 1988 George H. W. Bush chose as his running mate
Indiana senator Dan Quayle. Party strategists recommended Quayle,
believing his youth and good looks could help the ticket. But Dan
Quayle’s statements soon raised doubts. Quayle said, “I loveCalifornia. I practically grew up in
Phoenix.” On another occasion he announced, “I have made good
judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”
During a televised debate, a moderator repeatedly asked Quayle what
he would first do if the president died or became incapacitated.
Quayle stumbled, seeming unable to identify how he would deal with
such an emergency.

Twenty
years later the Party’s choice for vice president set off greater
alarm. During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP presidential
candidate John McCain’s selected Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his
running mate. Conservative pundits had been recommending her for the
vice presidency, especially William Kristol, who met her during a
visit to Alaska. With just days before the national convention, John
McCain realized that his preferred choice, Joe Lieberman, was
unacceptable to social conservatives. After a frantic search that
relied heavily on the Internet, advisers focused on Palin. She could
help the campaign, strategists believed, because she was a woman,
strikingly beautiful, and had the reputation of a maverick – an
image McCain wanted to convey. With very little vetting, McCain named
her. Republican leaders later discovered that Sarah Palin was poorly
informed about national and international affairs and grossly
unprepared for top leadership.

Democrats
are not consistent exemplars of talent selection, of course, but in
recent decades they have produced stronger candidates for vice
president. Since 1988, the Democrats’ choices included U.S.
senators with considerable political experience: Lloyd Bentsen, Al
Gore, Joe Lieberman, and Joe Biden. Only one selection since 1988 now
appears seriously flawed: the choice of John Edwards, the Democrats’
nominee for vice president in 2004. But scandals that wrecked
Edwards’s political career came to light years after
the 2004 presidential election.

Since
1988, candidates in the GOP’s presidential races have also raised
questions about readiness for national leadership. In 2000 party
leaders advanced the candidacy of George W. Bush, even though the
Texas governor lacked a strong grasp of national and international
issues. When Bush became president and dealt with the 9/11 tragedy,
Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and other challenges, his shortcomings were
abundantly evident. Sometimes Vice President, Dick Cheney appeared to
have greater influence over decision-making at the White House.

During
the 2012 primary contests, several weak candidates in the Republican
field received enthusiastic backing from wealthy supporters and
grassroots partisans. They briefly rose in popularity and then
slipped. Texas Governor Rick Perry attracted interest (and money) but
stumbled after speaking on-camera. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann,
businessman Herman Cain, and former Congressman Newt Gingrich looked
like major contenders for a short time but quickly lost favor after
receiving scrutiny in the news media. Other candidates appealed to
specific constituencies. Rick Santorum, for
instance, received support from evangelicals but failed to attract
broader support.

A
related pattern appeared during the 2016 primaries. Candidates that
lacked experience in government enjoyed brief moments of popularity.
Dr. Ben Carson’s fortunes surged. He burned out after his lack of
political knowledge became evident. Carly Fiorina, a tough-talking
former CEO at Hewlett Packard, also drew interest. She, too, quickly
wilted. And, of course, many Republican voters favored Donald Trump,
despite his frequent plunges into controversy.

Republican leaders should
have recognized that a crisis like the current one was a likely
outcome after the party established a low bar for presidential and
vice presidential aspirants. When a political party denounces
government repeatedly and characterizes entrepreneurs as heroes while
denigrating “bureaucrats” in Washington, partisans believe anyone
can handle the president’s job, even a real estate mogul and
reality game show host. When a party allows conservative radicals to
impose restrictive tests of ideological purity on presidential
hopefuls, talented individuals who are experienced in negotiation and
compromise recognize that they cannot compete in the primaries (or,
like Jon Huntsman in 2012 and John Kasich in 2016, they do compete
but fail to attract much voter support). When a party allows strident
commentators on radio, television, and the Internet to wield
extraordinary influence in its affairs, a candidate who skillfully
employs their techniques can emerge as the presumptive nominee.

Reporting
on the Republicans’ race for the White House has concentrated too
heavily on the bombast of Donald Trump. That emphasis suggests Trump
is revolutionizing GOP politics through the force of his personality.
A broader view of Republican practices since 1988 suggests that
Donald Trump has not single-handedly shaped his opportunities. In
recent years the Republican Party has provided a megaphone for
numerous candidates that lacked experience, skills and broad appeal.
That tolerance for resume-challenged candidates helped to clear a
path for Donald Trump’s march to the Republican national
convention.